Yeah...like when Jeff takes over vocals in Caroline No instead of having Brian sing the "break my heart" bit. I don't really care if Brian can't sing they high anymore, it sounds awful when Jeff comes in halfway through and Brian just sits there.

But, we have to be careful not to shoot the messenger. Jeff is...er...was just doing his job. That is what Brian and his wifeandmanagers hired him to do. And think of the alternative. It would've been very uncomfortable if Brian just sat there not singing with the song continuing along sans vocal.

That's a good point but it'd be nice if someone shook Brian a bit and reminded him that he's still capable of hitting the notes.

["Year after year, it's been a great source of inspiration to see the happiness our music has brought to multiple generations of Beach Boys fans in so many parts of the world," Mike Love said in a statement. "This summer I’m particularly excited for the Jones Beach show, which is such a terrific, iconic venue. It will be very special to share the stage with some old friends and bandmates, Al Jardine and David Marks."]

HeyJude: Points taken, but at the same time where is Mike's explanation or even a statement or comment about Al's appearance July 5th? This is the way Jones Beach was mentioned in the David Beard "Examiner" interview posted June 22, just over a week ago:

Will David Marks will be joining you for Jones Beach Theater concert on Saturday, July 5?

Mike: We’re planning on it, that’s for sure. David and I have had a long friendship. There was one time – when we were in Hawaii in the early days – David was sitting on a balcony, and was getting ready to fall off, and I grabbed his ankle as he was on his way down. He attributes that act as saving his life. Literally. David is a bright and witty person…a lot of fun to be around. I care about David a lot, and we always have had a great relationship.

At least an "elephant in the room" situation here, right?  

In the Rolling Stone article from mid-May, they quoted Mike:

"Year after year, it's been a great source of inspiration to see the happiness our music has brought to multiple generations of Beach Boys fans in so many parts of the world," Mike Love said in a statement. "This summer I’m particularly excited for the Jones Beach show, which is such a terrific, iconic venue. It will be very special to share the stage with some old friends and bandmates, Al Jardine and David Marks."

Right, and just around a month later (give or take a week) the interview with Mike where Jones Beach is mentioned has not a single word about Al, in either the question or the answer.

Doesn't that seem like a pretty glaring omission? Especially when I'd assume most people seeking out and reading these interviews would have read the May interview where Al is mentioned "sharing the stage", and then by June 22 Al isn't even mentioned. That's the "elephant in the room", right?

It’s hard to say what Mike knew or meant to convey at that stage, or when precisely the actual interview took place. He was asked specifically about David Marks, so it’s possible he was simply answering that question the affirmative without addressing Al one way or the other. I agree that if Al was a sure thing, it would make sense to also mention him in that response.

I’m also curious why the question was only asked about David Marks. If I was interviewing Mike about a big upcoming semi-reunion gig and I didn’t know that Al had backed out, I wouldn’t only ask the question about David, I would ask if David and Al were joining.  

Interviews tend to have pre-conditions, i.e. you can ask about X, you can't ask about Y. So, there's a good chance that Mike wanted to use the opportunity to plug the show but made it clear that Al was off-topic.

Yep, Mike is to blame no matter what. We get it.

No one is saying that. But a few of us have said repeatedly that there are numerous plausible and reasonable scenarios that could account for this that might show that the blame goes on Live Nation, Al, Mike or, more likely, all three.

Also, Jones Beach isn't remote for the majority of the people that go to the shows there. The amphitheater, right on the water, regularly serves 15K people, 4+ nights a week, every summer. It's easily accessible for the majority of people on Long Island, which if it were a state would be the most densely populated state in the union. It's just not convenient for someone that lives in NYC  with no car (not that they couldn't rent a zip car, figure out some trains/buses, carpool or hire a car service).

As per Wikipedia:

The park – 10 mi (16.1 km) in length – is renowned for its great beaches (which, excepting the Zach's Bay, face the open Atlantic Ocean) and furnishes one of the most popular summer recreational locations for the New York metropolitan area. It is the most popular and heavily visited beach on the East Coast, with an estimated six million visitors per year.

One fun sidebar to this thread is that you can *really* tell which of the members has it out for Al, LOL.

I don't think anybody here has it out for Al.  Al does some stupid things to himself, like putting the Jones Beach date on his own website, but I think people here recognize his talents and enjoy his singing and some of his songs.

I do remember that it was posted somewhere that not only was Al supposedly going to appear at Jones Beach with the Beach Boys, but he was also going to do some work in the studio with Mike. I'm not sure where I read that but I know it was out there somewhere. I assume that will not happen now, but it was interesting that it was apparently discussed between the two of them, or at least their agents. So, it was more than birthday greetings perfunctorily exchanged on Facebook.

I don’t think there was anything mentioned even as specific as Mike and Al working in the studio. In that Mike interview from the last month or so where we learned Foskett had joined, etc., Mike mentioned he had spoken to Al recently and they were discussing doing something “creatively.” That’s about as vague as one can get; it does presumably tell us that it would be (or would have been) something other than live concert performances. I took it as they were considering maybe writing something, and even that may have consisted of handing each other partially finished songs to polish up together.

As for folks being “out to get” Al, I think there are some folks like that. That goes for pretty much any band member (I suppose Dave has come away relatively unscathed in this sense). I think those that seem to have an agenda to attack/criticize Al stick out for a couple of reasons: First of all, as we discussed a little while back, whether it’s right or wrong, there has been a shift away from how things were 10-15 years ago as far as most of the ire from fans (again, right or wrong) going towards one particular member. But also, as objective as I can be, I think sometimes you have to work harder to really get nasty and mean about Al, and so when people do, it seems a little more obvious that the agenda of someone criticizing him has less to do with objectively noting that something he has done is disagreeable, and comes off more like a weird personal thing, and/or compensating and defending another band member by going after Al.

I think Al, on occasion, when he’s criticized within the context of the history of the BB’s, it comes across a bit like that scene with Milton from “Office Space” where they’re handing the pieces of cake out. Al’s “sins” in the course of BB history are a bit like Milton taking the piece of cake in that scene. Hopefully someone will get that reference.  

It kind of reminds me of when Alan White, the long-time drummer of Oasis, was fired for missing a band meeting. Alan supposedly missed a band meeting because of a prior personal commitment and Noel Gallagher decided that this was a sign that Alan wasn't committed enough to the band because, "In the past 10 years we've had all of 3 or 4 official band meetings and he couldn't be bothered to show up". Mind you, this was about a year or so after Noel had refused to tour with the band outside of the UK because of an argument he'd had with Liam. Consequently, a replacement band member was pulled in for about 35-40 shows, while Noel was "considerate" enough to show up for the big stadium gigs in the UK...For all the shows that he and his brother had missed over the years, for all of the tabloid headlines, the millions spent on cocaine (while Alan was sober), him not showing up for a meeting lead to his dismissal for not being "committed" enough.

So yes, in the grand scheme of things, if this is the worst thing that Al has done, especially in the context of what he's personally put up with himself, it's kind of ridiculous that Mike or Bruce may consider the bridge burned, given what everyone put up with from Brian and Dennis over the years on a business and personal level.  

To my knowledge, MFSL doesn't do Blu-Ray releases of any sort so I doubt it would be the same source.

Correct; it's almost 100% unlikely this would be the same mastering at the Mobile Fidelity SACD. There's no way MoFi would pay for the licensing rights and then just allow another company to issue their mastering on another format.

It seems everything in BB land is about licenses, doesn't it? 

Agreed, but isn't that a bit different than say Live Nation saying to Mike hypothetically "Hey. We know Al and David aren't in the group now but we need to shift some tickets. We want them in for a day."

Honestly, if presented like that and not getting into specific (and legal) terminology as you'd see on a contract to perform, I'd say no, it's a variation of the same thing.

It's all part of the negotiations, I'd say. Live Nation works with artists *and* venues, along with even organizers of package tours and shows like the Oldies Cruise or Malt Shop memories and whatever else is out there.

Let's say a major venue is offered the Beach Boys for a big weekend show. Live Nation and the networks that set up shows and tours contact that venue, and that venue comes back with a request similar to this: "We'll pay X-amount if you get Al Jardine on stage with them, X-amount if you get Al and Brian Wilson on stage..." and so on. They can ask anything, no matter how improbable, and it gets negotiated out immediately if it's too wild of an idea.

They're thinking purely in terms of ticket sales and the ability to charge more if three Beach Boys are on stage versus two, or whatever the ratio. Especially in terms of 2014.

Factor in also the contracts these venues have with food, drink, and concessions/souvenir vendors. If they get a full "Beach Boys" show, they may raise the price of a beer or bottled water 25 to 40 percent based on the demand and the assumption a larger audience will come to the show than would a solo Al Jardine concert, or whatever. And then those vendor interests have an interest in who will actually be performing - their income is now also tied to the ticket sales and demand.

And if the band management and lawyers can come back and say "we can get Al Jardine for that date, book the show", the offer for the band to perform would increase in terms of a guaranteed payment to appear with Jardine, or whoever else was specified.

So there is a direct relationship between who could and would appear on stage for a concert and how much the band or artist appearing would be guaranteed for that show, banking on the notion that if they could guarantee Brian Wilson and Mike Love would do a show on New Years Eve, the ticket sales would be considerably higher (as would demand) than if only one or the other did the same show.

In that kind of way, I think both venues, promoters, and the umbrella organization like Live Nation could at least base their offers and contract details on the membership of a band, and remember they can ask for anything but that doesn't mean the artist has to accept...which also means they may get offered half of the original figure if they don't accept.

I mentioned it several times, I know, but just consider the above details and think how many different interests lost money in the Nutty Jerry's situation because of which band members would or would not be on stage.

That almost confirms how vital the band membership can be in booking shows, because the entire budget and fee schedules in the whole concert and venue pipeline change based on adding or subtracting a single member in cases like the Beach Boys.

So Al may have made a deal with LiveNation, posted on both websites, and Al may have since backed out on LiveNation, leaving Beach Boys fans to wonder what is going on

The last thing any performer wants is to be blacklisted by the largest ticket seller/promoter in the United States. Even in his 70s, with limited performing ahead of him, I can't imagine Al would be stupid enough to back out of a contract with LN without there being ample cause or blame to go around in justifying it.

I still have it on order with SpinCDs in Newscastle (UK) but they've told me the release was postponed. As Chris pointed out above it was being sold by someone in Ireland on eBay but that listing has sold out - five copies went, according to the listing, but I suspect no-one received copies.

Still think the files used would have been the same as those on the SACD/CD hybrid that came out fairly recently.

To my knowledge, MFSL doesn't do Blu-Ray releases of any sort so I doubt it would be the same source.

The thing we have to remember is it is unlikely Brian could manage a 90 minute show on his own now. The last solo tour was 2011 with the Gershwin album wasn't it? He needs someone sharing the bill IMO.

I wonder if he had some kind of verbal agreement with Brian months ago when his UK gigs were announced.

Nope. The Brian summer gigs were announced before it was announced that Al would play with Mike. Therefore, Al would have been included on the bill/announcement back then. Remember, too, that Al had toured with Brian last fall, and Al was announced as being in Brian's band before that tour.

It's pretty clear Brian intentionally did not invite Al to the two summer gigs when they were first planned. Maybe Al decided to entertain the idea of playing with Mike as a ploy to get Brian's attention (t try to at least get Brian to include him on any fall tour), but if that were the case, it was pretty stupid and made Al look unprofessional when he backed out at the last moment. BTW, it would also make Al seem unprofessional if he had "some kind of verbal agreement" with Brian then turned around and agreed to do with Mike instead, leaving Brian in the lurch.

"It's pretty clear Brian intentionally did not invite Al" adds quite a bit of negative overtones to something that might've been as simple as the promoter initially saying they were only willing to pay for Brian, and not Al and David as well. And suggesting that Al agreed to play with Mike as a ploy to get Brian's attention? You've just intimated a whole level of negativity and duplicity on Al's part that I don't even know where to begin...

Al backed out of a one-off show with M&B that Live Nation brokered, with no explanation out of Mike or Al as to why the plans fell apart.

Could it have been about pay? Sure. Could it have been about future gigs? Sure. Could it have been about the setlist and what role Al would have in the show? Sure. Could it have been about Al being offended that Live Nation approached him and not Mike? Sure. Could it be that Mike told Al to "take it or leave it"? Sure. Could it have been about six other things? YES! So why even intimate the worst possible (and rather illogical) motivation that could possibly have lead to Al backing out out of the gig?

The thing we have to remember is it is unlikely Brian could manage a 90 minute show on his own now. The last solo tour was 2011 with the Gershwin album wasn't it? He needs someone sharing the bill IMO.

I think he could manage a 90 minute show on his own..Now, whether he actually wants to when he could be touring with Al and David, or, for that matter, w/ the Beach Boys is an entirely different discussion altogether.

Anyway, at this point we don't really have any more specifics about why the bottom fell out other than AGD inferring that M&B are really upset with Al. So I guess that feeling is mutual now.

Not sure, but I have a few questions to ask.

Oh, btw, the shows that were posted on mikelove.com then swiftly removed are still set to happen.

Thanks for asking the tough questions in a situation where that must've been more than a bit uncomfortable. That takes a brass set and I'm sure the rest of the fan base is grateful that you put yourself out there for it.

This has gotten a bit strange since the news broke. As it says, the "official" message was on his website and Facebook, then the whole website went offline, including the press release. Maybe they're writing a revised one? Strange.

I don't recall hearing anything, even a rumor, about Jeff Beck's health or hospitalization being an issue during or after the tour with BW, until now. See how this plays out.

Link: http://www.guitarworld.com/update-jeff-becks-health-and-european-tour-cancellation

Transcript:
Jeff Beck has canceled the second leg of his European tour.

According to a June 26 post on Beck's Facebook page and website, jeffbeckofficial.com, the guitarist, who turned 70 earlier this week, had been instructed by doctors to stop performing for six weeks. It also said he would "undertake a short hospital procedure."

This morning, however, we noticed the "official statement" is gone from both sites — and his entire website is down. Visitors are greeted with the message, "Error establishing a database connection."

Here is the full message that appeared on his website:

"It is with the greatest regret that Jeff Beck has been forced to cancel the forthcoming European dates of his worldwide tour, set to begin in Austria on June 27.

"Following many months of international touring and after seeking emergency medical attention, Jeff will now undertake a short hospital procedure, and his doctors have instructed a complete break from performance for a total of six weeks. Following the treatment, Jeff will fulfill his U.S. tour commitments beginning in Missoula, Montana, on August 8.

"He sends his profound apologies to those fans who had bought tickets for the European concerts and very much looks forward to playing for his American audiences after he has completed his treatment."

Yesterday, Guitar Player magazine's Jennifer Bergeron found a May 5 report at contactmusic.com that could shed light on Beck's condition.

Apparently, Beck experienced discomfort during his tour with Brian Wilson last year and had an endoscopy (an internal examination done with a camera at the end of a flexible tube) on an undisclosed body part or organ while in Chicago.

At the time, Beck gave the following statement to the U.K.'s Mojo magazine: "What I didn't realize was that the tour bosses wanted me to spend the whole afternoon doing promo to prop up ticket sales. So we did this meet-and-greet stuff where audiences pay good money to watch rehearsals, which robbed me of my afternoon nap. I ended up in Chicago University Hospital having an endoscopy. They still had me playing the next night. It was a bit blood and guts, but I had fallen in love with the idea of playing with Brian Wilson."

Certainly hope Jeff is okay...It sounds to me like his own personal health issues may have been impacting his feelings about last year's tour, especially if he feels in hindsight that not taking care of himself then lead to what he's dealing with now.

You'd never have known anything was wrong watching him on-stage. What a trooper!

If Brian Wilson sent Mike Love an e-mail that said no more shows, then the end of the tour is because of Brian Wilson and no one else.
   

Simple answer to that: if Brian's people don't deny sending the email, then it happened. Hopefully they won't wait six weeks.

But the "no more shows for Brian" claim has been made before, with the e-mail aspect being mentioned for the first time now. The key point though is that there is no statement as to when this e-mail was sent. If it was sent in June of 2012 that's very different than if it was sent in late August, isn't it? And again, why would this only be brought up two years later? My guess is that the reason it's only coming up now (given how much credence it would've given Mike's argument), is that later conversations superseded it.

Unless Al just feeds off chaos, I don't know why he doesn't just put together a band and play clubs as himself. He has a fantastic, youthful voice and plenty of his own and Beach Boys material, and folk stuff to draw from. Mike couldn't do that! Brian can't do anything but be THE GREAT BRAIN WILSON (even if he wanted to) and cart around a steam-ship full of "his people" ..... Only Al and Dave could just plug in and let it rip. Why does he want to mess around with Mike or Brian when he has the goods all on his own? Why bother with any "Beach Type" thing at this point? He certainly doesn't need the money.

Then again, I'm not a Beach Boy and can't fathom it would be an easy thing to just let go.

Indeed. I can't even comprehend what it would be like to "just let go". For the better part of 50 years these guys have built a business, brand and legacy that will outlive them, their children and their children's children. With C50/TGWMTR they more than proved that they've all still got a few more years left in the tank to put the finishing touches on their collective story.

So, you're Al Jardine, founding member and dedicated foot solider of the Beach Boys, and you're now considering the possibility that "The Beach Boys" will play their last gigs without you on-stage. Does that make you want to "hit the clubs" on your own, having to deal with all of the details involved in putting a tour together (big or small) and the risk that comes with booking your lesser-known name at age 72?

If I'm Mike Love, and I and the rest of my BB bandmates are staring mortality in the face, I don't know that I could forgive myself if the the last Beach Boys gig isn't played by The Beach Boys. And with every additional gig that he books with his current backing band, instead of finding a way to co-exist with Brian, Al and David, the potential for that happening comes closer and closer to reality. They all need to make some compromises, but as long as Mike keeps control of the name, it ultimately falls on him, for better and worse.

I wonder who would have the power in the band if Al rejoined? Mike has the license to tour with the name, and as such is the guy who makes all the decisions in the current incarnation. If another member of BRI is part of the group, do they then have equal say as a BRI member, or does it work as "You're a paid employee of Mike Love's band which is licensing the BB name"? Or does it immediately shift to "Mike and Al are licensing the name, with equal royalties and say on the daily business of the touring band, while paying out to BRI"?

Also, thinking about all of this makes it really sad that neither Bruce nor Dennis' estate still has a vote (ideally one but not both) in BRI as I would imagine that an odd number of voters would make it much easier to get business done as a group...

If Al were to rejoin (obviously hypothetical now) then it would be up to Mike to agree to the details. He obviously wouldn`t agree to give Al an equal share so Al would be a paid employee essentially, albeit with the complication of his being a % receiving member of BRI thrown into the mix.

I don`t think having another member of BRI would have helped things much. Since Mike was given the exclusive right to tour in a 3 to 1 vote there doesn`t seem to have been any real talk of that changing other than on here.  

I think that vote would go a little differently 15 years later but I just mean in general business discussions that require a vote, not just this one! :-)

In response to Andrew Hickey's speculation that there might've been negotiations in the last few months to have Al rejoin the band full-time, and in response to ToneBender631's post in another thread about how it might feel for somebody like Al and Brian to not be part of the "final act"....

I mentioned it a few weeks ago that I thought it was perfect timing for Al to rejoin the band when Christian Love recently left. I'm still wondering if Al also thought it was perfect timing, maybe expected to rejoin the band, and was/is bitterly disappointed when Jeff Foskett got the job.

I'm probably wrong, not because of the number of gigs that Mike & Bruce play, but probably because Mike has a gut instinct that he (Mike) and Al can't co-exist in a band full-time anymore.

I wonder who would have the power in the band if Al rejoined? Mike has the license to tour with the name, and as such is the guy who makes all the decisions in the current incarnation. If another member of BRI is part of the group, do they then have equal say as a BRI member, or does it work as "You're a paid employee of Mike Love's band which is licensing the BB name"? Or does it immediately shift to "Mike and Al are licensing the name, with equal royalties and say on the daily business of the touring band, while paying out to BRI"?

Also, thinking about all of this makes it really sad that neither Bruce nor Dennis' estate still has a vote (ideally one but not both) in BRI as I would imagine that an odd number of voters would make it much easier to get business done as a group...

My guess is that there was a verbal "Okay, Mike, that sounds fun." and a few weeks later they got down to the money/role/future shows discussion, Al didn't like what Mike was offering and Mike said, "Okay Al, take it or leave it.", to which Al left it. For what it's worth, Al has already offered a statement (albeit not an apology), as has David, while Mike hasn't even touched upon it.

Overall, I think the concerns about lawsuits are a bit overblown. There are three names on the bill and I'm sure Live Nation will be offering refunds to the likely very small group of people that request them. Additionally, the optics of another lawsuit wouldn't play to Mike's benefit in any way shape or form in the public eye...It'd be the same story about Mike kicking Brian, Al and David out of the band. The show isn't even 40% sold (with the upper deck closed), and yet the C50 just about sold out the venue 2 years ago (having already played about 5 or 6 NY/NJ area shows).  If Mike sued Al for breach of contract and cited any impact to ticket sales it would play right into Al and Brian's argument, wouldn't it? How would all of those details look in print?

Q: Can you explain your current beef with Mike?

A: I just don`t see why one guy should own the name when this other guy was there as long as he was - in fact, before he was - building the name with my hard work, sweat and tears.

So Al was harmonising in the group before Michael joined the party?

Weird quote, right? As far as we know that ain't right on any account.

He might've sung a song with Brian in the shower in the locker room at Hawthorne High School after football practice. Maybe that's what he was referring to. I'm totally serious. I noticed in some of Al's interviews during the C50 Reunion that he was, um, (over?)emphasizing his role as a founding member of the group, like his brief, casual meetings with Brian led to the formation of The Beach Boys.

Well, Al was the one who approached Brian to form a group back at college.  it was Brian's idea to bring in his family after not being able to keep a consistent lineup that was any good, so yes, in a sense, Al was there in the group t,hat would become the Beach Boys before Mike.

Oh yeah, and clack also alluded to it in his above post. I was just going back a little bit more to the Hawthorne days because Al mentioned knowing Brian through high school football, hearing Brian sing at a school assembly, and that Hawthorne guys "stick together". I mentioned that maybe Al overemphasized his role in the IDEA of forming the group because, well, Brian rarely (ever?) mentions it, singing with Dennis, Carl, Mike and others preceeded Al, and, the IDEA of forming a group was probably in Brian's head before Al brought it up. However, obviously Al was there at the beginning. I mean, his mother loaned them money for the upright bass!

There was a very telling quote from Al when they started doing press for the BAD shows, when asked about his feelings towards Mike touring without them under the BB name, Al expressed anger and frustration along the lines of "This is really about our legacy at this point." I can't even imagine what it must feel like for Brian and Al to reflect on a 50+ year career as members of one of the most important ensembles in modern music history, and not get to take part in the closing act. For the amount of times that I've seen people say, "Al and Brian don't seem to complain they're cashing those checks or singing Mike's lyrics", I wonder how many people have actually reflected on how they'd feel in a similar situation in the twilight of their own lives (a family business, a creative endeavor, etc.), especially if money didn't have to be a concern.

For a guy who hated all the trappings of the C50, Mike sure is cramming as many of them in to his touring show as he possibly can.

Look! On screen tributes to Carl and Dennis!
WoW!! Celebrating 50 years of…. um… a hit single!
Cripes! Bigger venues!!!
Zowie! A meet and greet!
Hooray! Jeff Foskett!

It's starting to look like the only thing Mike really didn't like about C50 Beach Boys was, you know, the Beach Boys.

To be fair, the stuff that Mike seemed to hate the most were the "unnecessary" expenses (in his eyes): Separate tour buses, huge band, 1st class flights, touring with all of the equipment...

I'm sure that those things had an impact on the bottom line, but we're not exactly talking the U2 Popmart tour, are we?

By the same token, if someone was promoting the gig without a firm legally binding assurance that Al was to appear, that's where the fault lies. Al might not have left Red Barn for several months and might not have been aware of the publicity. (That's just me speculating btw…)

I agree that it should have all been signed and sealed before it was announced.

But I can`t believe at all that Al could have been oblivious to the fact that it had been announced that he was playing a show with Mike.

Like I've said already, I'm sure there were behind the scenes discussions that were going on the whole time. And now the joke that Al made at the AC show makes that much more sense. He'd been very positive about Mike since the Ella Awards up until that moment so something clearly went afoot between the two of them between this Jones Beach PR that Mike's team put out and prior to the AC show.

Is it unprofessional of Al to not show up for a show he was billed as attending and had ostensibly agreed to do? Yes, a bit.
Do we know the circumstances and agreements (or lack thereof) that lead to his name being put on the bill (while David's is still absent) and subsequent PR? No, we don't.

Until we know a little more information, why don't we all just keep calm and listen to Pet Sounds, eh? And for those that bought tickets on condition of Al being there, call Jones Beach/Live Nation and absolutely demand a refund. I'm sure they'll be accommodating and maybe you'll find out some information from the promoters standpoint in doing so...

FWIW, ticket sales are still very poor for the show: http://concerts.livenation.com/event/1D004C96A49ED655.

Al's name was on the show poster, advertised directly to people via Ticketmaster e-mail, and the gig was promoted in "Rolling Stone" magazine. If Al had a time to speak up, it was then, which was weeks ago. There's really no excuse for Al's behavior in this. He should have said something before more people bought tickets to it. Instead, he remained completely silent for weeks. The Beach Boys should allow refunds to any ticket buyers who bought based on Al being there. And Al should apologize for not speaking up much, much sooner.

There was clearly more stuff going on behind the scenes that might not have allowed for such a statement until now. Let's wait until more information trickles out before tarring and feathering either Mike or Al.

This from the guy that started the thread...

Poor Brian, having to read criticism of decisions he din't even make.

Poor Brian, having to read criticism by people who don't actually know whether he made (or agreed with) a particular decision or not.  No matter how sure of themselves they are.

I'm really sick of fandom's tendency to treat the objects of their fandom as a Rorshach test.

Regards,
Jon Blum

Do you know what's really sickening? Having fans tell other fans how they are supposed to think and feel. Who the hell are you?

Oh, shudder, fans are stating and opining what kind of music, album, and collaborators (or lack of) that they PREFER from their favorite artist. And on a rock & roll message board no less. How dare they do that! Fans have just as much right to express skepticism or displeasure at what they are reading as people who are posting optimistic feelings. And I'll repeat - what they are reading. Of course they haven't heard the music, but it's not the music they are criticizing. They are speculating and predicting on a message board about "things" that they don't care for.

Brian's Facebook message/response falls right in line with the rest of the decisions being made about this...er...project. He probably didn't think of it, he probably didn't compose the content, and he probably didn't physically type it. But they want us to believe he did. In my opinion, of course...

Did Brian post that or author it word for word? Probably not. My guess is that it was Melinda that wrote it, given the time of day that the post went up, probably reflecting Brian's reaction to some comments on the FB thread, as well as possibly those on this board. But your phrasing also seems to suggest that Brian has no input, creatively or otherwise, in this entire project. Am I misunderstanding? Or are you just referring to the public "updates" that we've been getting?

Poor Brian, having to read criticism of decisions he din't even make.

Poor Brian, having to read criticism by people who don't actually know whether he made (or agreed with) a particular decision or not.  No matter how sure of themselves they are.

I'm really sick of fandom's tendency to treat the objects of their fandom as a Rorshach test.

Regards,
Jon Blum

As a Mets fan it's always been a whole heckuva lot of fun to criticize every decision their management team makes...Who needs to be privy to contract negotiations, clubhouse interactions, internal scouting reports or monthly finance reports when you can just tell the GM to sign a SS for $12mi/yr from the informed perch of one's living room couch?

There may be some auto-tune in use on Al's vocals, but it's nowhere near as bad as anyone is claiming. They used the same processing chain for the rest of the lead vocals in the suite.

Indeed ? First you tell us most emphatically there's no autotune on the track at all, now there "may" be some. A little consistency, please.

And I never claimed it was bad (the contrary actually), just that it was unsubtle enough for me to catch it.

Here's what I've said:

"The auto-tune on TWGMTR (exempting the IIT single remix) is actually done very subtly. There's one particular moment in TLOS where the auto-tune jumps out far worse than anything on TWGMTR."

"Al's performance is pretty tight on this, and there is probably a bit of auto-tune, but it's not what everyone is making it out to be."

"Not that auto-tune itself has no artifacts but that the most common artifacts aren't all over From There To Back Again."

"There may be some auto-tune in use on Al's vocals, but it's nowhere near as bad as anyone is claiming. They used the same processing chain for the rest of the lead vocals in the suite."

Which part of that is inconsistent? I've said all along there's auto-tune on the record but I've also stated that what most people believe they hear as auto-tune is actually as a result of different types of vocal processing, most of which doesn't have the negative connotation that the term "auto-tune" does.

There is most definitely a liberal use of that pitch correction effect going on throughout the reunion album.  Same with their live album.  But if you *really* want to talk about horrible use of pitch correction, look (or hear) no further than Paul McCartney's live album, Good Evening New York City.  Holy crap do they take it to another level...

I actually went to the second show of that. Excellent performance from Paul and his pitch was fine at the show. One of only two times I've seen my mother cry over a man (the other being BW at the Highline Ballroom in 2011)! I have the live album but haven't listened in awhile...I seem to remember "Drive My Car" being the worst offender on the auto-tune front? Is that an accurate memory?  

Anyway, pitch modulation (whether natural or otherwise) can get really funky when you start involving delay processing. I'd really encourage people on this board to spend a bit of time on YouTube learning about ADT (especially how it purposely introduces pitch modulation) and VocAlign. VocAlign is really helpful for doubles and harmony stacks in the music world and is really heavily used when doing ADR in the film/tv world. While it does an incredible job, when overdone it can get things so locked in that they sound unnatural (like Al and Brian's harmonies on FTTBA).

There may be some auto-tune in use on Al's vocals, but it's nowhere near as bad as anyone is claiming. They used the same processing chain for the rest of the lead vocals in the suite.

Indeed ? First you tell us most emphatically there's no autotune on the track at all, now there "may" be some. A little consistency, please.

And I never claimed it was bad (the contrary actually), just that it was unsubtle enough for me to catch it.

Here's what I've said:

"The auto-tune on TWGMTR (exempting the IIT single remix) is actually done very subtly. There's one particular moment in TLOS where the auto-tune jumps out far worse than anything on TWGMTR."

"Al's performance is pretty tight on this, and there is probably a bit of auto-tune, but it's not what everyone is making it out to be."

"Not that auto-tune itself has no artifacts but that the most common artifacts aren't all over From There To Back Again."

"There may be some auto-tune in use on Al's vocals, but it's nowhere near as bad as anyone is claiming. They used the same processing chain for the rest of the lead vocals in the suite."

Which part of that is inconsistent? I've said all along there's auto-tune on the record but I've also stated that what most people believe they hear as auto-tune is actually as a result of different types of vocal processing, most of which doesn't have the negative connotation that the term "auto-tune" does.

[REALITY CHECK:]

The auto-tune on TWGMTR (exempting the IIT single remix) is actually done very subtly.

I'm guessing you've never listened to "From There To Back Again". Because if you had, you'd not be making that statement. Actually, I don't mind RoboAl, but subtle it ain't.

Now, compared with what Thomas did to the live album, the autotune on Cher's "Believe" is subtle.

I'm guessing you're speaking about the opening line, particularly the "...there's no where else I'd rather be" line.

No, I'm talking about every note RoboAl sings, and my ears aren't as attuned to it as some here.

REALITY CHECK: 1. There are no overly audible retuning artifacts nor are there any interval jumps that sound particularly unnatural. 2. The story that has been recounted is that Al sang it line by line, only expecting to sing one bit in the song. Brian was so impressed that he had Al sing the rest of the verse. If it was that pitchy that it necessitated being that heavily auto-tuned (as some have claimed), would he have wanted Al to sing as much as he did? Brian still complains about the pitchiness on "California Girls". 3. When you're in a studio with a talented singer (which Al is, I think we'd all agree) and a very big budget (which this album had), you don't overly rely on auto-tune to get a workable track. You comp multiple takes to create one unified take. This is a fairly easy process in the world of Pro Tools (or any other DAW) and would take little to no time (once you've got the takes to work with!).

To my ears, it sounds like perhaps a bit of light ADT/tape delay (with some cool resultant stereo imaging) sent to a plate reverb with a very smooth decay. For the multi-tracked harmony ("...thinking bout when life was still in front of you") it sounds like they probably used Vocalign (or manual editing) to tighten up the timing. There may be some auto-tune in use on Al's vocals, but it's nowhere near as bad as anyone is claiming. They used the same processing chain for the rest of the lead vocals in the suite.

If you listen to Al's vocals on the re-recorded "California Saga" on his solo album, his pitch modulation sounds very similar (with a very light slapback delay), but without the reverb and stereo imaging that was used on the suite of TWGMTR, so the vocals are more "up front" in the mix.

Unfortunately, a singer not needing autotune is not in any way proof that it was not used. Many artists have proven in more recent years that they will use autotune when they DON’T need it. These are perhaps the most frustrating cases. Some engineers, producers, and/or artists use autotune as if it was as much of a necessity as electricity. It’s there, so they use it. I’m not saying taking a crappy singer and trying to cover it up with autotune is good, but at least it has an obvious purpose there. Not so with good singers who use it out of laziness or because their producer just thinks that’s the “sound” that the industry wants. I *wish* they would just let good singers comp multiple vocal takes, do fly-ins, etc. But many decent or good singers aren’t opting for this route, which I suppose would take more time and skill in some cases.

As to the audible artifacts of autotune, there are a number of very different artifacts. Two of the most common are the odd sort of “interval jumps” mentioned, and the more general “robo voice” effect. The “interval jump” thing happens for instance when autotune is applied to someone who isn’t simply slightly flatting or sharping a note here or there, but sings much more “all over the place.”

I think that you're missing my point (or I may be misunderstanding! )...Not that auto-tune itself has no artifacts but that the most common artifacts aren't all over From There To Back Again. I think people are hearing other things in the mix (such as ADT/tape delay) and mistaking it for what they believe is auto-tune. Don't take this the wrong way since you seem to be somewhat educated and experienced on the audio side of things, but most of the people that call something "auto-tune" haven't spent a whole lot of time (read: any) actually using auto-tune or sitting behind a mixing board. I've listened to FTTBA on more high-end monitoring systems than I care to admit and what people are hearing on there is not what they think it is, at least to my experienced and trained ears.